WH-QUESTIONS IN CHINESE AND JAPANESE I: ANTI-CROSSING AND
ANTI-SUPERIORITY*
Takita, Kensuke[1], Chisato Fuji[1] and Barry C.-Y. Yang[2]Nanzan University[1] and National Tsing Hua University[2]1. Introduction
Chinese and Japanese are often classified in the same language-type (Chomsky 1986
among others) since both of them are wh-in-situ languages. Then, it might appear that this
aspect of these two languages can be analyzed in the same way. In this paper, however, we
will argue that wh-arguments in Chinese and Japanese have different properties and must be
analyzed in the different way. Specifically, we will explore whether Chinese shows theanti-crossing and the anti-superiority effects, which are found in Japanese (see Saito 2004 andreferences cited therein). We will show that there is the crucial difference between the
behavior of Chinese and Japanese wh-arguments with respect to the anti-crossing andanti-superiority effects. Assuming that these effects are induced by wh-movement, we willargue that our findings support for Tsai’s (1994, 1999, 2006) unselective binding approach,which claims that wh-arguments in Chinese do not have to move.
First, we briefly review the similarities and differences of wh-phrases in Japanese andChinese. Let us start with Japanese. It is well known that there is an asymmetry between
wh-arguments and wh-adjuncts in Japanese, as shown in (1).
(1)

a.

Kimi-wa[[ nani-okatta] hito]-osagasiteru no?
you-TOP what-ACC bought person-ACC looking-for Q‘What is the thing x such that you are looking for [the person [who bought x]]?’b. *Kimi-wa [[sono hon-onaze katta] hito]-osagasiteru no?
you-TOP that book-ACC why bought person-ACC looking-for Q‘What is the reason x such that you are looking for [the person [who bought thebook for x]]?’(Based on Saito, 2004)(1a) contains the wh-argument, nani ‘what’ and (1b) contains the wh-adjunct, naze ‘why.’
Both of them are embedded in the Complex NP, but only (2b) is ungrammatical.
Descriptively speaking, wh-arguments can violate the Complex NP Constraint, while
wh-adjuncts can not.
*We would like to thank Tomo Fujii, Mamoru Saito and W.-T. Dylan Tsai for their helpful comments.

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2, 99-112© 2007 Kensuke Takita, Chisato Fuji, and Barry C.-Y. Yang

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2This argument-adjunct asymmetry with respect to the Complex NP Constraint can befound in Chinese. Look at examples in (2).
(2)

a.

Akiu kan -bu -qi [[ zuo shenme] de ren]]?
Akiu look -not -up do what
PNM person‘What is the thing/job x such that Akiu despises [people [who do x]]?’b.

*Akiu xihuan [ Luxun weishenme xie ei ] de shui?
Akiu like
Luxun whywrite PNM book
‘What is the reason x such that Akiu likes [books [that Luxun wrote for x]]?’(Tsai, 1999)(2a) contains the wh-argument, shenme ‘what’ while (2b) contains the wh-adjunct, weishenme‘why,’ and only (2b) is ungrammatical. This is parallel to Japanese.
Huang (1982) explains these data by claiming that in wh-in-situ languages like Chineseand Japanese, wh-phrases move in LF, where Subjacency does not hold. According to his
claim, the wh-adjuncts in (1b) and (2b) undergo LF movement to the matrix CP. The
sentences are ruled out because the traces of wh-adjuncts are not properly governed andviolate the ECP. The wh-arguments in (1a) and (2a) is also moved to the matrix CP in LF.
However, since the traces of wh-arguments can be lexically governed, their movement only
violate Subjacency, which holds in overt syntax but not in LF.
Huang’s explanation crucially relies on the ECP, which is abandoned in the minimalist
frame work. Instead of the ECP, Tsai (1994) employs the unselective binding to explain therelevant asymmetry. According to his hypothesis, wh-arguments are indefinites so that they
can feature a variable which can be unselectively bound by a Q-operator freely merged into
Spec, CP. In this way, an in situ wh-arguments and a Q-operator can form an
operator-variable construction. On the other hand, wh-adjuncts are genuine operators so thatthey do not feature the variable. As a result, they have to move to Spec, CP to be licensed,
forming the operator-variable relation. In other words, in Chinese only wh-adjuncts undergo
movement.
In Japanese, however, there is evidence for movement of wh-arguments. That is,Japanese observes the wh-island effect with wh-arguments. The relevant example is shown in(3).

- 100 -

Wh-Questions in Chinese and Japanese I (K. Takita et al.)(3)

a. ?* John-wa [[Mary-ga
nani-okatta] ka-dooka] Tom-ni tazuneta no?
-TOP-NOM what-ACC bought whether-DAT asked Q‘What did John ask Tom whether Mary bought?’b.

Ni xiangzhidao [ Lisi xi-bu-xihuan shei]?
you wonder
Lisi like-not-like who‘(Lit.) Who do you wonder whether Lisi likes ___ or not?’# ‘(Lit.) Is it the case or not that you wonder Lisi likes who?’

In (3a), the wh-island effect is observed. Thus, wh-arguments undergo movement in Japanese.
On the other hand, Chinese wh-arguments do show the wh-island effect, as in (3b). This isbecause Chinese wh-arguments do not move but can be bound by the Q-operator in the matrix
clause. In this respect, Japanese and Chinese wh-phrases differ.
Putting these facts together, wh-adjuncts both in Chinese and Japanese undergo
movement as illustrated in (4).
(4)[CP whyi [TP ... ti ... ]]On the other hand, wh-arguments are different between two languages. Chinese wh-arguments
are subject to unselective binding as shown in (5a) and Japanese wh-arguments involve
movement as in (5b).
(5)

a.

[CP Opi [TP ... whati=indef.(x) ... ]] (Chinese)b.

[CP whati [TP ... ti ... ]] (Japanese)

Yet, recall that the wh-argument nani ‘what’ in (1a) does not induce the island effect. Then,
why can the wh-argument in (1a) move across the Complex NP island? Nishigauchi (1986,
1990) proposes that large-scale pied-piping is available in Japanese. That is, the entire
complex NP is moved to Spec, CP in (1a). Thus, the violation of Complex NP constraint does
not occur in (1a), and the sentence is grammatical. Following Nishigauchi’s pied-piping
hypothesis, wh-arguments in Chinese and Japanese are schematized in (6a) and (6b)respectively1.
(6)a.

[CP Opi C0 [TP ... [DP1 ... [DP2 whati=indef.(x)] …] …]] (Chinese)1

Watanabe (1992) assumes that in Japanese Q-operator originates from the Spec, DP, which can be
the head of the Complex NP itself, and moves to the Spec, CP as illustrated in (i).
(i)

[CPOpi [… [DP1 ti [… [DP2 indef.(x)]… ]]… ]]In this structure, the wh-phrase within the Complex NP is bound by the Q-operator merged in Spec,
DP2, and the Q-operator itself in turn moves to Spec, CP. This analysis is consistent to our argument
because it also assumes that there is movement in sentences which contain wh-arguments.

- 101 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2[CP [DP1 …[DP2 what] …]i C0 [TP ... ti ...] …] (Japanese)b.

In (6a), the wh-arguments are bound by the Q-operator remaining within the Complex NP,
whereas in (6b) it pied-pipes the entire Complex NP.
Given these differences of wh-arguments between Chinese and Japanese, we naturally
expect that they do not always behave in the same way, contrary to its superficial similarity,i.e., being in-situ. In this paper, examining a sentence which contains multiple wh-phrases weshow that wh-arguments in Chinese and Japanese behave differently. Section 2 deals with theso called the crossing and anti-crossing effects, where multiple wh-arguments appear in asingle sentence. In Section 3, we discuss the superiority and anti-superiority effects, inparticular the case where wh-arguments and wh-adjuncts interact. We argue that the attested
Chinese data can be explained elegantly by the analysis of Tsai (2006). Section 4 is theconclusion.
2. Crossing and Anti-Crossing
This section discusses whether Chinese observes the crossing and anti-crossing effects.
Let us start with the crossing phenomenon in English. In English, crossing dependences yieldan ungrammatical sentence, as the contrast in (7) indicates.
(7)

a.

??

b.

*Whoj do you know which booki to persuade tj to read ti

Which booki do you know whoj to persuade tj to read ti

On the other hand, Japanese shows the opposite pattern to (7), which is called theanti-crossing effect. In the rest of this section, we first discuss Japanese the anti-crossing
effect and then shows that this effect is not found in Chinese.
2.1. Anti-Crossing in Japanese
As mentioned above, Japanese has the anti-crossing effect. First, look at the crucial
example taken from Saito (2004).
(8)

Taro-wa [CP dare-ga
nani -okatta ka] siritagatteru no?
-TOP who-NOM what-ACC bought Q want.to.know Q‘Q Taro wants to know [Q who bought what]’

Saito (2004) points out that (8) has only three interpretations out of four possible ones listedin (9a) through (9d).

- 102 -

Wh-Questions in Chinese and Japanese I (K. Takita et al.)

(9)

a.

Does Taro want to know [for which x, y] x bought yb.

??

[For which x, y] Taro wants to know whether x bought yc.

??

[For which x] Taro wants to know [for which y] x bought yd. * [For which y] Taro wants to know [for which x] x bought y
If both of the wh-phrases can take embedded scope, the matrix clause is construed as a
yes/no-question, as in (9a). When both of them take matrix scope, (8) has the interpretation in(9b). (9c) is the case where dare ‘who’ takes matrix scope while nani ‘what’ takes embedded
scope, and this interpretation is possible. On the other hand, (9d), where nani ‘what’ takes
matrix scope and dare ‘who’ takes embedded scope, is impossible.
However, when the surface order of dare ‘who’ and nani ‘what’ is switched from (8) to(10), the pattern of possible interpretations slightly changes.
(10)

Taro-wa [CP nanii -odare-ga
ti katta ka] siritagatteru
no?
-TOP
what -ACC who-NOM bought Q want.to.know Q‘Q Taro wants to know [Q who bought what]’

The interpretive possibilities for (10) are listed in (11).
(11) a.

Does Taro want to know [for which x, y] x bought yb. ?? [For which x, y] Taro wants to know whether x bought yc.

* [For which x] Taro wants to know [for which y] x bought yd. ?? [For which y] Taro wants to know [for which x] x bought y
In this case, while the interpretation in (11d) is possible, that in (11c) is impossible. Saito(2004) summarizes the situation as in (12).
(12) a.

* [CP Wh2 [TP ... [CP Wh1 [TP ... t1 ... t2 ...] Q] ...] Q] (= 9d, 11c)b. ok [CP Wh1 [TP ... [CP Wh2 [TP ... t1 ... t2 ...] Q] ...] Q] (= 9c, 11d)

Recall that this is totally opposite to the English pattern shown in (7). Hence this phenomenon
is called “anti-crossing”.2
Why does Japanese have the anti-crossing effect while English has the crossing effect?
Richards’(2001) analysis which adopts “Attract Closest” (Chomsky 1995, Bošković 1997,
2

This is also called the “nesting effect” (Saito, 2004).

- 103 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

Kitahara 1997, among others) and tucking-in seems to be quite attractive. He assumes thatJapanese allows multiple Specs as landing sites for wh-movement whereas English does not.
Then, both Wh1 and Wh2 can move to embedded Spec, CP as their intermediate landing sites.
Look at the structure in (13).
(13) a.

[CP [TP … [CP Wh1 Wh2 [TP ... t1 ... t2 …] Q] …] Q]

b.

[CP

[TP … [CP Wh1 Wh2 [TP ... t1 ... t2 …] Q] …] Q]

c.

[CP

[TP … [CP Wh1 Wh2 [TP ... t1 ... t2 …] Q] …] Q]

d. * [CP[TP … [CP Wh1 Wh2 [TP ... t1 ... t2 …] Q] …] Q]x

As illustrated in (13a), the embedded C attracts the closer Wh1 first and it occupies the higher
Spec CP. Wh2 is attracted next and tucked into the lower Spec, CP. Thus, Wh1 is still closer
than Wh2 to the matrix C. If the matrix C is yes/no-question C, the wh-phrases stop there. If
the matrix C is wh-question, there are three attraction possibilities, as in (13b) through (13d).
(13b) is the case where both of them are attracted by the matrix Q and (13c) is the case inwhich only Wh1 is attracted. Since the closest Wh1 is attracted, they are not ruled out. In (13d),
only Wh2 is attracted and Wh1 is left unmoved, so that the Attract Closest is violated.
Therefore, the ill-formed structure in (12b) can be ruled out.
The crossing-effect in English is explained as follows. (14a) is the derivational step
where the embedded Q is merged. Then, the closest wh-phrase who is attracted, as in (14b).
The derivation proceeds and the matrix Q is merged in (14c). Then, it attracts the wh-phrase
which book. What is crucial here is that since the higher wh-phrase who has already been
attracted before the step in (14d), the lower one can be the closest.
(14) a.

[Q [to persuade who to read which book]]]]b.

[whoj [to persuade tjto read which book]]]c.

[Q [you know [whoj [to persuade tjto read which book]]]d.

[Which booki [you know [whoj to persuade tjto read ti]]]

Therefore, the derivation converges without violating Attract Closest.
Although Richards’(2001) account is tempting, one problem arises here: a wh-phrase
looks like as if it takes scope both in the embedded and the matrix CP although it should takeits scope in one position. In other words, what is needed for Richards’(2001) account is to- 104 -

Wh-Questions in Chinese and Japanese I (K. Takita et al.)make it clear that movement into matrix CP and that into embedded CP must be triggered bydifferent reasons.
Saito’s (2004) analysis seems to be preferable in this respect. He assumes that C may
have two features to be checked; the Q-feature and the P(eripheral)-feature. He further
assumes that a wh-phrase which checks the Q-feature takes its scope there. Thus, a wh-phrase
which checks the Q-feature in embedded CP takes scope there. On the other hand, if a
wh-phrase checks the P-feature in the embedded CP and it checks the Q-feature in the matrix
CP, the embedded CP is just an intermediate landing site for the wh-phrase, and it takes
matrix scope.
Saito’s (2004) idea, which is important to explain the crossing/anti-crossing effects, isroughly summarized as in (15).
(15) The more prominent feature is checked earlier in English but later in Japanese. That is,
the Q-feature is checked first in English while it is checked last in Japanese.
Following this idea, in Japanese, the derivation of the sentences with two wh-phrases goes as
illustrated in (16).
(16) Japanesea.
[CP C{Q, P} [TP ... Wh1 ... Wh2 ...]]b.

[CP Wh1 C{Q, P} [TP ... t1 ... Wh2 ...]]

c.

[CP Wh1 C{Q, P} [TP ... t1 ... Wh2 ...]]d.

[CP Wh1 Wh2 C{Q, P} [TP ... t1 ... t2 ...]]e.

[CP C{Q} [TP [CP Wh1 Wh2 C{Q, P} [TP ... t1 ... t2 ...]]]x

In Japanese, Wh1 is attracted first as in (16a) and it checks the P-feature as in (16b).
Subsequently Wh2 is attracted as in (16c) and checks the Q-feature as in (16d). Thus, it takes
its scope in the embedded CP. Thus, only Wh1 can move into the matrix Spec, CP as shown in(16e). Wh2 cannot move to the matrix Spec, CP because its scope has already fixed. In thisway, the anti-crossing effect is derived.
Saito’s (2004) account can also capture the English crossing, repeated here in (17).
(17) *[CP Wh1 [TP ... [CP Wh2 [TP ... t1 ... t2 ...]

Given that English allows multiple Specs (contrary to Richards 2001) and an embedded CP- 105 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

has two features, namely the Q-feature and the P-feature just like Japanese, both Wh1 andWh2 can move into the embedded Spec, CP. The derivation goes as illustrated in (18).
(18) Englisha.
[CP C{Q, P} [TP ... Wh1 ... Wh2 ...]]b.

[CP Wh1 C{Q, P} [TP ... t1 ... Wh2 ...]]

c.

[CP Wh1 C{Q, P} [TP ... t1 ... Wh2 ...]]d.

[CP Wh1 Wh2 C{Q, P} [TP ... t1 ... t2 ...]]e.

[CP C{Q} [TP [CP Wh1 Wh2 C{Q, P} [TP ... t1 ... t2 ...]]]
x

Unlike Japanese, the Q-feature is checked first by Wh1 in English as can be seen in (18b).
Then, as shown in (18c) and (18d), Wh2 is attracted to check the P-feature. Since Wh1 checks
the Q-feature and takes its scope in the embedded CP, only Wh2 can move into the matrix CP,
as in (18e). Thus, the crossing effect follows.
In this way, English crossing and Japanese anti-crossing can be explained by the same
system. The point here is that both the crossing and anti-crossing effects are induced by
movement. If Chinese wh-arguments do not have move, as discussed above in Section 1,
these effects should not be observed. In the next section, we will examine the Chinese dataand show that this prediction is actually borne out.
2.2. Absence of the (Anti-) Crossing Effect in Chinese
Following Tsai’s unselective binding approach, wh-arguments in Chinese do not undergo
movement as shown in (6a), which is repeated here in (19).
(19)[CP Opi [TP ... [DP1 ... [DP2 whati=indef.(x)] …] …]]Since both the crossing and anti-crossing effects are caused by the movement from embedded
CP to matrix CP, we predict that Chinese does not exhibit these effects.
Now, let us consider the crucial example in (20) and its interpretations in (21).
(20)

Zhangsan xiang-zhidao [ shei mai-le shenme] ne?
Zhangsan want-know
who buy-Prf. what
‘Q Zhangsan wants to know [who bought what]’(21) a.

* Does Zhangsan want to know [for which x, y] x bought y- 106 -

Wh-Questions in Chinese and Japanese I (K. Takita et al.)b.

*[For which x, y] Zhangsan wants to know whether x bought yc.

[For which x] Zhangsan wants to know [for which y] x bought yd.

[For which y] Zhangsan wants to know [for which x] x bought y

For some reason which we do not pursue here, the first two interpretations in (21a) and (21b)are impossible unlike to its Japanese counter part in (8). What is important here is that bothinterpretations in (21c) and (21d) are possible. Theses configurations are schematized in (22).
(22) a. ok [CP Wh1 [TP ... [CP Wh2 [TP ... t1 ... t2 ...] Q] ...] Q] (= 21c)b. ok [CP Wh2 [TP ... [CP Wh1 [TP ... t1 ... t2 ...] Q] ...] Q] (= 21d)

Therefore, neither the crossing effect nor the anti-crossing effect is observed in Chinese.
This data clearly suggests that Tsai’s unselective binding approach is on the right track.
3. Superiority and Anti-Superiority
Thus far, we discussed the crossing and anti-crossing effects and showed that
wh-arguments in Chinese behave differently from Japanese wh-arguments. In this section, we
will consider the superiority and anti-superiority effects. We will first discuss English
superiority and Japanese anti-superiority showing that Saito’s (2004) account forcrossing/anti-crossing can be extended to these phenomena. Then, we will examine theChinese data comparing them with the English and Japanese data, and argue that neither
superiority nor anti-superiority is observed in Chinese, as predicted by Tsai’s theory.
3.1. Superiority in English
In this subsection, we will quickly overview the superiority effect in English. First, lookat the example of the “original” superiority effect in (23).
(23) a.

Whoi ti bought what?

b.

*Whati did who buy ti?

When the higher wh-phrase, who, is moved to the Spec, CP, the sentence is grammatical as in(23a). As shown in (23b), however, the sentence is ungrammatical when the lower wh-phrase,
why is moved. To explain them, the superiority condition is proposed by Chomsky (1973).
According to Chomsky (1973), when two wh-phrases take scope in the same CP, the superior(structurally higher) wh-phrase must move to the Spec, CP.
On the other hand, Huang (1982) tries to account for the superiority effect by employing
the ECP. Proposing the LF Wh-movement Hypothesis, he argues that all wh-phrases must

- 107 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

move in LF. Consider (23) again in accordance with his account. While the trace of what canbe lexically governed in (23a), the trace of who cannot be lexically governed or
antecedent-governed in (23b) since it has to adjoin what, which has already moved. Thus, itviolates the ECP and the sentence is correctly ruled out. In this way, the superiority condition
can be elegantly reduced to the ECP. Huang’s (1982) proposal is supported from othersuperiority examples such as in (24) and (25).
(24) a.

Tell me whyi you bought what ti.

b.

*Tell me whati you bought ti why.

(25) a.

* Tell me whoi ti bought the book why.

b.

*Tell me whyi who bought the book ti.

In (24a), just as in (23a), the traces of both why and what can satisfy the ECP. On the other
hand, the trace of why in (24b) can be neither lexically governed nor antecedent-governed sothat it violates the ECP. Hence the contrast between (24a) and (24b) follows. Examples in(25) can be also captured by the ECP. In this case, both of the traces of why in (25a) and whoin (25b) cannot be properly governed. Hence, (25a) and (25b) are ruled out by the ECP.
Although Huang’s (1982) ECP account is convincing, the examples by Hendrick andRochemont (1982), which are shown in (26), call it into question.
(26) aWhoi did you persuade ti to buy what?

b. * Whati did you persuade whom to buy ti?
In (26b), although the trace of whom can be lexically governed by persuade so that the ECP
can be satisfied, the sentence is ungrammatical. Thus, the contrast between (26a) and (26b)does not fall under the ECP account. What is crucial here is the structural height of the two
wh-phrases. That is, only the higher one can move. Therefore, the examples in (26) are called“pure” superiority. Given this observation, the superiority condition seems to be needed
independently of the ECP.
3.2. A Movement Analysis of Anti-superiority in JapaneseIn the previous subsection, we discussed the English data. We will discuss the Japanesedata in this subsection. Let us first consider the crucial examples in (27).
(27) a.

Kimi-wa nani -onaze katta no?
you -TOP what-ACC why bought Q‘(Lit.) What did you buy why?’- 108 -

Wh-Questions in Chinese and Japanese I (K. Takita et al.)b. * Kimi-wa naze nani-okatta no?
you-TOP why what-ACC bought Q‘Why did you buy what?’
In (27a), it is expected that nani ‘what’ moves first because it is superior and naze ‘why’
moves next. Thus, the trace of naze ‘why’ cannot be properly governed and violates the ECP,
rendering the example ungrammatical. On the other hand, we predict that traces can beproperly governed in (27b) since the superior naze ‘why’ can move first, so that the sentenceis grammatical. The grammaticality of the sentences, however, is true opposite to our
prediction. It seems that the opposite pattern of the superiority condition occurs in (27). Thus,
this is called the “anti-superiority” effect (Saito 2004, Watanabe 1992 among others).
How can we analyze the anti-superiority effect in Japanese? Saito’s (2004) account ofcrossing/anti-crossing discussed in Section 2.1 can also capture this effect. Remember that heassumes that C may have two features to be checked, namely the P-feature and the Q-feature.
Here, he further assumes that the Q-feature may have two sub-features; Q-primary and
Q-secondary. Suppose that wh-adjuncts like ‘why’ must check the primary feature of Q. Since
the more prominent feature is checked earlier in English, Q-primary is checked by the first
wh-phrase in Spec, CP and Q-secondary is checked by the second wh-phrase. On the other
hand, the more prominent feature is checked later in Japanese. Therefore, the first wh-phrasein Spec, CP checks the Q-secondary and the second wh-phrase checks the Q-primary inJapanese.
Given this assumption, the derivation of (27a) goes as illustrated in (28).
(28) Japanesea.
[CP C{Q-P, Q-S} [TP ... what ... why ...]]b.

[CP what C{Q-P, Q-S} [TP ... twhat ... why ...]]

c.

[CP what C{Q-P, Q-S} [TP ... twhat ... why ...]]d.

[CP what why C{Q-P, Q-S} [TP ... twhat ... twhy ...]]The prior wh-phrase, nani ‘what’ must move to the Spec, CP first, and it checks the secondaryfeature of Q, as in (28a) and (28b). Then, naze ‘why’ moves to Spec, CP to check the primaryfeature of Q, as in (28c) and (28d). Hence, the derivation converges. However, in ill-formed(26b), since naze ‘why’ is superior to nani ‘what’ it moves first, so that it fails to check the
primary feature of Q. Thus, the derivation cannot converge. This system automaticallyexplains the English superiority; since the primary feature of Q is checked first in English,
why must move first. In other words, the difference between English and Japanese is reduced
to the order of feature-checking.

- 109 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

In this way, Saito’s (2004) theory that the more prominent feature is checked earlier inEnglish but later in Japanese accounts for not only crossing/anti-crossing but alsosuperiority/anti-superiority together. Just as the (anti-)crossing effect, the crucial point here isthat both superiority/anti-superiority effects are caused by movement. Then, we expect thatthese effects should not be observed in Chinese if Chinese wh-arguments do not move.
3.3. Incompatibility of Argument and Adjunct Wh-phrases in Chinese
In Section 3.1 and 3.2, we discussed the superiority/anti-superiority effects and showedthat these effects are induced by wh-movement. The question here is that whether Chinese
exhibits the superiority/anti-superiority effects. If these effects are observed in Chinese, itsuggests that there is wh-movement in Chinese. Thus, it poses a serious problem to Tsai’s
analysis.
At this point, let us consider the example in (29).
(29) a.

Ni weishenme mai na -ben -shu ne?
you whybuy that -CL -book Q‘Why did you buy that book?’b.

*Ni weishenme mai shenme ne?
you why
buy what Q‘Why did you buy what?’c.

* Shenme ni weishenme mai ne?
what
you whybuy Q‘(Lit.) What did you buy why?’

As can be seen in (29b) and (29c), both weishenme ‘why’- shenme ‘what’ order and shenmeweishenme order are not acceptable in Chinese. What is important here is that regardless of
their order, wh-arguments and wh-adjuncts cannot co-occur. If Chinese observes thesuperiority, (29b) should be good while (29c) should be out. If Chinese observes theanti-superiority, the opposite pattern should be attested. Yet, both of them are not found. In
other words, Chinese does exhibit neither the superiority effect nor the anti-superiority effect.
Given that Chinese wh-adjuncts must move (see section 1), the situation in (29) means that
Chinese wh-arguments do not move.
If wh-arguments do not move, however, the prediction is that both (29b) and (29c) are
grammatical, and this contradicts to the fact. The next question is how we can account theattested pattern. Tsai’s analysis also gives straightforward explanation for this fact that
wh-arguments and wh-adjuncts cannot co-occur in Chinese. Look at the example in (30).

- 110 -

Wh-Questions in Chinese and Japanese I (K. Takita et al.)(30)

* Nimen, shei weishenme hui likai?
you guys, who whywill leave‘*You guys, who will leave why?’(Tsai, 2006)

Recall that in the unselective binding approach, the unselective binder is merged to the Spec,
CP. Here, if the adjunct wh-phrase, weishenme ‘why’ moves to the Spec, CP, the Q-operator
cannot be inserted to that position. Thus, unselective binding is impossible for shei ‘who’ dueto the lack of an unselective binder (Tsai, 2006). In this case, the structure of (30) is shown in(31).
(31) a.

CP
whyi

b.
C’

Op

C

CP
x

whyi

C’

IP
who

C

IP

ti

who

ti
unbounded

Even if the Q-operator is inserted to the Spec, CP first and it unselectively binds shei
‘who’, there is no room for weishenme ‘why’ to move, so that the sentence is ruled out by
vacuous quantification. In this case, the structure of (30) is shown in (32).
(31) a.

CP

b.

Opi

C’

CP
Opi

C

IP
whoi

C’
C

why

x

IP
whoi

why

Therefore, sentences which contain both wh-arguments and wh-adjuncts are ruled out.
In this section, we showed that both the superiority/anti-superiority effects are found in
Chinese, predicted by the unselective binding approach, and it can also explain the attested
pattern.
4. Conclusion
In this paper, we investigated whether Chinese observes crossing/anti-crossing andsuperiority/anti-superiority. Assuming that Saito’s (2004) movement analysis, which canuniformly account crossing and superiority in English and anti-crossing and anti-superiority- 111 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

in Japanese, we predicted that if wh-arguments in Chinese does not move as Tsai (1994, 1999,
2006) none of these phenomena is found in Chinese, since crossing/anti-crossing andsuperiority/anti-superiority effects are induced by wh-movement. Then, we provided therelevant Chinese data which indicate that the prediction is correct. Therefore, these data
supports for Tsai’s unselective binding approach that wh-arguments do not undergo
movement but unselectively bound by Q-operator in Spec, CP. These data indicates that evenwh-in-situ in Chinese and Japanese should be distinguished. This is important because one of
the motivations of the uniform treatment of Chinese and Japanese is this point; wh-in-situ.

References
Bošković, Ž. (1997) On Certain Violations of the Superiority Condition, AgrO, and Economy of
Derivation. Journal of Linguistics 33, 227-254.
Chomsky, N. (1973) “Conditions on Transformations,” in S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky, eds., A
Festschrift for Morris Halle, Holt, Rinehard and Winston, New York.
Chomsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use, Praeger, New York.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hendrick, R. and M. Rochemont. (1982) “Complementation, Multiple wh, and Echo questions,”
Mimeographed, University of North Carolina and University of California at Irvine.
Huang, C-.T. J. (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.
Nishigauchi, T. (1986) Quantification in Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Nishigauchi, T. (1990) Quantification in the Theory of Grammar, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht.
Richards, N. (2001) Movement in Language, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Saito, M. (2004) “Some Remarks on Superiority and Crossing,” in Hang-Jin Yoon, ed., Generative
Grammar in a Broader Perspective, 571-595, Hankook, Seoul.
Tsai, W.-T. D. (1994) On Economizing the Theory of A’-Dependencies, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Tsai, W.-T. D. (1999) “On Lexical Courtesy,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8, 39-73.
Tsai, W.-T. D. (2006) “Lectures on the Syntax & Semantics of How and Why”. Handout from theintensive seminar at Nanzan University, September 11-14, 2006.
Watanabe, A. (1992) “Wh-in-situ, Subjacency, and Chain Formation,” MIT Occasional Papers in
Linguistics Number 2. MITWPL, Cambridge, MA.

- 112 -